BB, something to ponder for me

[bubbawitha4570]

What are your impressions of the Ruger international rifle? Have you ever handled one, shot one, and specifically what do you think it would be like in .308?

[DocHolladay]

[juliang]

That's one of them there man licker stocks.

[GrampaJer]

I like the looks.. Put a scope on it, dig your heels in the dirt. and fire away..

[bigblue]

First of all I don't think you can beat a Ruger 77 MKII for strength and reliability. I have handled an International in a store a while back, you don't see many on the shelves, but I've never had the chance to shoot one. I've looked at the International myself mainly because I like the idea of an 18" barrel for most of the hunting I do. Same length as the original Remington Mod. Seven before they went with a 20" or 22" depending on chambering. I'm not sure where they place the pressure point of contact between the barrel and stock on the International. If that contact point is in the same place as the standard 77 MKII (about 9.5" forward of the receiver) and the rest of the barrel is floated, I wouldn't be too concerned. If however that pressure point is at or near the tip of the barrel I'd be concerned that the long walnut stock would be overly affected by damp weather and apply either too much pressure or not enough for consistent accuracy. I'm also not sure if that stock can be properly bedded to relieve that problem. I had it in mind to buy the rifle and change to a synthetic aluminum bedded Hogue stock just to get an 18" barreled 77 MKII. In the long run I thought it would be a lot cheaper to have the standard rifles barrel cut down to 18" and re-crowned. The fact that the International rifle wears iron sights is a nice plus for those that have the eye sight to use them. I had a Ruger Compact with it's 16.5" barrel in .308 and it did have a bit more kick in that 5.5lb. rifle, but not anything major. Of course I did lose quite a bit of velocity with that short barrel as compared to the standard 22"so the 18" would lose less and be better in that respect. Accuracy in the 16.5" short barrel was acceptable for big game and if I remember correctly I was able to get 1.25" groups with handloads.
Don

[bubbawitha4570]

I just handled one the same night that I first posted the question. Didn't get to shoot it, but it really handled very nice for me. Almost seemed too light for the intended purposes the shop owner had the two of them in for--mostly a carbine type of rifle for a woman or youngster--especially in .308. I recommended that if someone did buy it he should have them put lighter bullets through it...unless they are used to shooting correctly and heavier recoiling rifles.

I figured that you might have shot one in the past or something, that is why I asked. I also had the same thoughts on getting one and swapping out the stock for a syn or laminated... I just still don't like the idea of having a rifle without a sturdy set of open sights on it, hence this choice in barrle options.

[bigblue]

Nov 22, 2008 13:36:07 GMT -6 bubbawitha4570 said:

I just still don't like the idea of having a rifle without a sturdy set of open sights on it, hence this choice in barrle options.

I thought that might have been the attraction for you. There are very few that come with iron sights anymore, other than mil-surp and lever actions of course.
Don

[bubbawitha4570]

Nov 22, 2008 15:44:56 GMT -6 bigblue said:

Nov 22, 2008 13:36:07 GMT -6 bubbawitha4570 said:

I just still don't like the idea of having a rifle without a sturdy set of open sights on it, hence this choice in barrle options.

I thought that might have been the attraction for you. There are very few that come with iron sights anymore, other than mil-surp and lever actions of course.
Don

Obviousy you know me well....

I've often looked at an unfired gun and wondered just what it will cost to put a set of iron sights on it.